Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Kent Watsen]

ting for IEEE 802.1Q WG chair - what is that?
> [MJ]  Glen thinks that the extension of VLAN YANG model should be happening 
> there.
> [RS]  this is related to overlapping of the bridging model implementation?
> [DR] do you have any mail exchanges for this? Maybe this could be raised in 
> IEEE plenary. Please forward me any emails on this discussion



From: Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, 
"netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
<netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

Hi Kent,

I've some minor modifications of some of the minutes, mainly just to clarify 
who was asking some of the questions/comments (mostly between Rob Shakir and 
myself), but also some other minor clarifications when I was listening back to 
the audio.

[Before]

10 min: draft-ietf-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01(Anees Shaikh or [RS] Shakir)
Rob Shakir presenting.
[LL] Would it be possible to have multiple management interfaces (NETCONF, 
RESTONF, other) - is the intended configuration supposed to be private per 
transport protocol?
[RS]  Would think no. There is one intended configuration per device.
[LL] this may have some locking implications.
[TC]  Why did you chose to use intended/applied approach?
[RS]  This allows us to use YANG today.
[KW] there were 3 solutions drafts.
[TC]we are doing the same thing in BBF, and would like to mimic the 
solution agreed here.
[AS] There is a section i a draft that addresses this.
[LB]  I am confused on the process for the requirements. You said you will make 
consensus call for requirements today?
[KW] we will do a consensus call on solutions. I believe there is consensus on 
requirements.
[LB]  on a list there was a discussion on planning to poll for consensus but 
that did not seem to happen.
[KW] confirming consensus on requirements now by humming - consensus achieved.


[After]
10 min: draft-ietf-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01(Anees Shaikh or [RS] Shakir)
Rob Shakir presenting.
[LL] Would it be possible to have multiple management interfaces (NETCONF, 
RESTONF, other) - is the intended configuration supposed to be private per 
transport protocol?
[RS]  Would think no. There is one intended configuration per device.
[LL] this may have some locking implications.
[TC]  Why did you chose to use intended/applied approach rather than using 
datastores?
[RS]  1. No such thing as an applied datastore today.  This solution allows us 
to use YANG today. 2. Our solution allows for a single path that is not 
dependent on the datastore.
[KW] there were 3 solutions drafts.
[TC]we are doing the same thing in BBF, and would like to mimic the 
solution agreed here.
[AS] There is a section in our draft that addresses some of these questions.
[LB]  I am confused on the process for the requirements. You said you will make 
consensus call for requirements today?
[KW] we will do a consensus call on solutions. I believe there is consensus on 
requirements.
[LB]  on a list there was a discussion on planning to poll for consensus but 
that did not seem to happen.
[KW] confirming consensus on requirements now by humming - consensus achieved.


[Before]

10 min: other solutions for the opstate-reqs (Robert Wilton)
Robert Wilton presenting.
[RW]  no changes to existing YANG models - that does not seem to be practical. 
There are vendor extensions anyway.
[RW] Wilton  if models are standardised in IETF, they should work in all cases.

[KW] we would like to know which of those solutions should progress forward.
[Rw]  would be nice to poil for who has read the solutions drafts?
[KW] who would favor solution 1. Humm. 2. Humm (most). 3. Humm
[KW] Does anyone object to solution 2? Please go to mike?
[Rw]  Didn't we do that already? We seem not to going anywhere forward with 
this discussion. We did clarify wording, but that is mostly it. It is noting 
for operator to help with configuring a network. Is it a perfection problem 
here? Can we produce something practically useful?
[CM] There are large installations based on existing YANG specifications.
[RW]I take that into account. I have none in my network though that use 
existing model. I am not saying that we should throw away the existing solution 
in favor of the future solution.
[CM] There is a technology shift.
[CH] We are not forcing to implement some particular data store technology. 
This is more of a way of thinking of it.


[After]
10 min: other solutions for the opstate-reqs (Robert Wilton)
Robert Wilton presenting.
[RS] No changes to existing YANG models - that does not seem to be practical. 
There are vendor extensions anyway.
[RW]   if models are standardised in IETF, they should work in all cases.

[KW] we would like to know which of those solutions should progress forward.
[RS] Wo

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Kent,

I've some minor modifications of some of the minutes, mainly just to 
clarify who was asking some of the questions/comments (mostly between 
Rob Shakir and myself), but also some other minor clarifications when I 
was listening back to the audio.


[Before]

10 min: draft-ietf-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01(Anees Shaikh or [RS] Shakir)
Rob Shakir presenting.
[LL] Would it be possible to have multiple management interfaces (NETCONF, 
RESTONF, other) - is the intended configuration supposed to be private per 
transport protocol?
[RS]  Would think no. There is one intended configuration per device.
[LL] this may have some locking implications.
[TC]  Why did you chose to use intended/applied approach?
[RS]  This allows us to use YANG today.
[KW] there were 3 solutions drafts.
[TC]we are doing the same thing in BBF, and would like to mimic the 
solution agreed here.
[AS] There is a section i a draft that addresses this.
[LB]  I am confused on the process for the requirements. You said you will make 
consensus call for requirements today?
[KW] we will do a consensus call on solutions. I believe there is consensus on 
requirements.
[LB]  on a list there was a discussion on planning to poll for consensus but 
that did not seem to happen.
[KW] confirming consensus on requirements now by humming - consensus achieved.


[After]
10 min: draft-ietf-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01(Anees Shaikh or [RS] 
Shakir)

Rob Shakir presenting.
[LL] Would it be possible to have multiple management interfaces 
(NETCONF, RESTONF, other) - is the intended configuration supposed to be 
private per transport protocol?

[RS]  Would think no. There is one intended configuration per device.
[LL] this may have some locking implications.
[TC]  Why did you chose to use intended/applied approach rather than 
using datastores?
[RS]  1. No such thing as an applied datastore today.  This solution 
allows us to use YANG today. 2. Our solution allows for a single path 
that is not dependent on the datastore.

[KW] there were 3 solutions drafts.
[TC]we are doing the same thing in BBF, and would like to mimic the 
solution agreed here.
[AS] There is a section in our draft that addresses some of these 
questions.
[LB]  I am confused on the process for the requirements. You said you 
will make consensus call for requirements today?
[KW] we will do a consensus call on solutions. I believe there is 
consensus on requirements.
[LB]  on a list there was a discussion on planning to poll for consensus 
but that did not seem to happen.
[KW] confirming consensus on requirements now by humming - consensus 
achieved.



[Before]

10 min: other solutions for the opstate-reqs (Robert Wilton)
Robert Wilton presenting.
[RW]  no changes to existing YANG models - that does not seem to be practical. 
There are vendor extensions anyway.
[RW] Wilton  if models are standardised in IETF, they should work in all cases.

[KW] we would like to know which of those solutions should progress forward.
[Rw]  would be nice to poil for who has read the solutions drafts?
[KW] who would favor solution 1. Humm. 2. Humm (most). 3. Humm
[KW] Does anyone object to solution 2? Please go to mike?
[Rw]  Didn't we do that already? We seem not to going anywhere forward with 
this discussion. We did clarify wording, but that is mostly it. It is noting 
for operator to help with configuring a network. Is it a perfection problem 
here? Can we produce something practically useful?
[CM] There are large installations based on existing YANG specifications.
[RW]I take that into account. I have none in my network though that use 
existing model. I am not saying that we should throw away the existing solution 
in favor of the future solution.
[CM] There is a technology shift.
[CH] We are not forcing to implement some particular data store technology. 
This is more of a way of thinking of it.


[After]
10 min: other solutions for the opstate-reqs (Robert Wilton)
Robert Wilton presenting.
[RS] No changes to existing YANG models - that does not seem to be 
practical. There are vendor extensions anyway.

[RW]   if models are standardised in IETF, they should work in all cases.

[KW] we would like to know which of those solutions should progress 
forward.

[RS] Would be nice to poll for who has read the solutions drafts?
[KW] [Show of hands] About half the room have read the three drafts.
[KW] Who would favor solution 1. Humm. 2. Humm (most). 3. Humm
[KW] Does anyone object to solution 2? Please go to mike?
[RS]  Didn't we do that already? We seem not to going anywhere forward 
with this discussion. We did clarify wording, but that is mostly it. It 
is nothing for operator to help with configuring a network. Is it a 
perfection problem here? Can we produce something practically useful?
[CM] There are large installations based on existing YANG and NETCONF 
specifications.
[RS]I take that into account. I have none in my network though that 
use existing model. I am not saying 

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Kent, Andrew

Do you have a pointer to the recordings please?  I tried the audio 
streams on the link below, but I can't seem to get them to work.


https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html

Thanks,
Rob


On 17/11/2015 18:32, Kent Watsen wrote:


All,

The minutes for the two NETMOD sessions have been posted:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-netmod

Please provide comments/corrections on these draft minutes by Wed, Nov 
25th.


PS: huge thanks to Ignas and Andrew for putting these together!

Thanks,
Kent



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Nadeau Thomas]

It doesn't work for me either. I’ll file a case with the support folks 
to take a look.

—Tom

> On Nov 24, 2015:9:22 AM, at 9:22 AM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> 
> Hi Kent, Andrew
> 
> Do you have a pointer to the recordings please?  I tried the audio streams on 
> the link below, but I can't seem to get them to work.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On 17/11/2015 18:32, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> The minutes for the two NETMOD sessions have been posted:
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-netmod 
>> 
>> 
>> Please provide comments/corrections on these draft minutes by Wed, Nov 25th.
>> 
>> PS: huge thanks to Ignas and Andrew for putting these together!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Kent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod 
>> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Robert Wilton]

Thanks, Martin.  That works.

Rob


On 24/11/2015 14:36, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Robert Wilton  wrote:

Hi Kent, Andrew

Do you have a pointer to the recordings please?  I tried the audio
streams on the link below, but I can't seem to get them to work.

https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html

Try this one:

http://ietf94.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recordings


/martin
.



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Kent Watsen]

On 11/24/15, 9:36 AM, "Martin Bjorklund"  wrote:

>Robert Wilton  wrote:
>> Hi Kent, Andrew
>> 
>> Do you have a pointer to the recordings please?  I tried the audio
>> streams on the link below, but I can't seem to get them to work.
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/minutes?item=minutes-94-netmod.html


When clicking on the “audio stream” link:

  - Safari says “ This webpage has content that requires an Internet plug-in.
This page contains content of “audio/x-mpegurl” type. You do not have the
plug-in required to view this content.  I clicked the “missing plugin”
link, but it didn’t do anything.

  - Firefox offers to save the file or load with iTunes.  Loading with iTunes
doesn’t work.  Saving to file and then examining its contents shows
"http://icecast-ietf.conf.meetecho.com:8000/room301.mp3”, which looks
like it’s more for the live stream as oppose for a recorded stream.




>Try this one:
>
>http://ietf94.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recordings
>
>
>/martin


This worked for me in Firefox, but not Safari (it spins forever trying to load 
the page)

Thanks,
Kent



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Martin Bjorklund]

Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> The minutes for the two NETMOD sessions have been posted:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-netmod
> 
> Please provide comments/corrections on these draft minutes by Wed, Nov 25th.

I got a comment based on the minutes that it seems like we are
suggesting that people should not use "choice" at all.  I listened to
the recording, and I believe some crucial points were lost:

On page 7:

OLD:

[RS]  if we want to simplify things, we need to remove choice completely.
[MB]  L that is likely a good idea.
[RS]  you need to track which branch gets used. It does not explicitly
  does not show in the tree. And  
  for those who do not like they could not implement it.
[MB]   maybe it is only applicable to very small trees only.

NEW:

[RS]  if we want to simplify things, we need to remove choice
  completely.  I am not proposing that we do this.
[MB]  I agree.
[RS]  you need to track which branch gets used. It does not explicitly
  show in the tree. And  
  for those who do not like they could not implement it.
[MB]  The data model designer needs to use these constructs carefully.
  "choice" is often used in very small trees only.



And to further clarify things, I do *not* think we should make this
"simplification".  "choice" and "when" are both useful.


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

[Kent Watsen]

All,

The minutes for the two NETMOD sessions have been posted:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-netmod

Please provide comments/corrections on these draft minutes by Wed, Nov 25th.

PS: huge thanks to Ignas and Andrew for putting these together!

Thanks,
Kent

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod